Fujifilm X-T3 Review

When the Fujifilm X-T2 arrived, it was more than just a modest upgrade to the already impressive X-T1, most notably in terms of autofocus and video. While the new X-T3 hasn't changed the overall design of the camera it repeats the same trick: representing a significant step forward.

The X-T3 brings with it a brand new sensor, improved autofocus and video performance that makes it competitive with Panasonic's GH5, taking the X-T series from being a very good stills camera to one of the best stills/video hybrids on the market.

With its classic looks, attractive photos and superb video, it's the APS-C camera to beat.

Comments

I don’t know, man. I have seen a lot of my friends bragging about those little high iso performances, IBIS, etc. But their photos are still suck. No emotion. Every element in the frames has no connection. I am here still taking pictures with the old XT1. And it still sells well.

It's amp glow. Basically a color cast caused by sensor heat, artificially adding light to the image. It's very bad, something that can't be 100% corrected. The X-T3 doesn't have this at the same ISO and shows true black, which is why it's darker, but more accurate.

Same thing happened with the X-T2 and A6300. X-T2 launched first. A6300 lauched a little later with the same sensor, better image quality, and nearly all the features that have taken years for Fuji to add via firmware.

I totally respect your position, but what brings you into a Fuji article to comment about something you won't buy? Like I'm not over on Ford's website telling them I won't buy their vehicles... I have better things to do.

Platinium_Jello,I do not agree. If manufacturers are willing to broaden their customer base, they must listen to people who do not buy their product, so they eventually improve them. But those people must explain why, not just moaning...

Always some spoilsport around to bring up the time you threw up in kindergarten.

Jeff Tan and your ilk - sharpening of X-Trans sensors was solved two years ago by Iridient Developer and Capture One. That Adobe and DXOmark can't get their act together to support anything except Bayer sensors is not Fujifilm's problem but yours.

Only one brand makes X-Trans sensors. And not for any significant amount of time. It's not Adobe's fault. Then again, C1 not supporting the camera's built-in profiles like Adobe does is a pretty big letdown.

Thanks so much for your valuable contribution to this discussion. I’m sure Fuji will call you immediately to take your valued option into consideration and change their entire sensor tech based on your feedback.

@LiOm Photography dpreview bright light shots are shot at 1/5000s which would make sense only if you're shooting bullets (with the camera, that is :) ) Low light shots are instead at 1/40s which is more similar to the scenario you described.

The areas you need to be looking at in terms of noise are dark areas, like the bottles on bottom. Those will be the most severely impacted, and will make or break your image. Lighter areas, when properly exposed, are generally acceptable even at very high ISO.

Highlight recovery has more to do with which colour you're trying to recover and how good your conversion software is at guessing a result than it is to do with the camera.

JPEGs are designed to reach white before the colour channels clip in the Raw file, so that they're not trying to reproduce colours with incomplete colour information. So there's a tiny bit of leeway there, depending on which channel has clipped first and which colour you're trying to recover, but once a Raw channel has clipped, there's no recoverable information - it's mainly your Raw processing software trying to guess.

That's why we look at dynamic range by looking in the shadows: because there can be quite a lot of additional shadow information that's not included using the default JPEG tone curve.

The only way you'd get more highlight recovery on one camera, rather than another, is if the JPEGs were clipping to white a long time before the Raw channels clip. This would encourage using less exposure than the sensor can tolerate, which would be an odd exposure strategy, since it would mean all your shots would be slightly noisier than they need to be (which I doubt any manufacturer would intentionally do).

It's certainly possible to do a pretty good job with highlights that are only *almost* clipped. With a bit of finagling you can pull a lot of detail out of a bright overcast sky, for instance—but any patches that are actually true white will always remain that way. You can make clipped highlights turn gray instead of white, but that usually looks even worse. If you're stuck with clipped highlights, your least-bad option (aside from just leaving them alone, which is sometimes fine) generally involves something like a healing brush or content-aware fill.

I have never had good results recovering from highlights. Shadows - definitely.

I remember reading something about how film sensitivity lowers as it receives more light, allowing good highlight recovery. Hopefully digital will get there one day. Individual photo site read based on individual exposure levels. Sounds like fantasy? I see no reason it can't be feasible.

While the continual increase in dynamic range for camera sensors will make it easier and easier to avoid having clipped highlights in a photo, clipped is clipped. Once you go all the way to white, there's absolutely zero image information to work with and therefore nothing to recover. AI-based tools like Content-Aware Fill can make a surprisingly good guess as to what *should* have been there—and I'm sure those types of tools will get better and more commonplace over time—but it will never be more than a guess, just as if you had a human illustrator come in and draw over the clipped areas in Photoshop. What's gone is gone.

The reason that shadow recovery is so important is precisely *because* highlight clipping is impossible to fix. If you have a high-contrast scene, it often makes sense to dramatically underexpose the shot in order to save the highlights, knowing that later on in post you can pull the shadows back up. Therr have certainly been times when I've underexposed by four or five stops; my camera doesn't have 5 stops of shadow recovery though, so I do it as an exposure bracket. Sunrises and sunsets are the classic application, but anytime you're shooting into the sun you're going to want to majorly underexpose and then recover the shadows.

The way I test highlights is in ACR, with default settings, I use the color sampler, drop a few points at a large, completely blown out area, then drop exposure until it falls off of 255, 255, 255.

Very repeatable results. My A6300 can recover about 2.75 stops, while my GX85 is at 2.0. I've noticed that many Nikons are also around 2 stops, while most Sonys are around 2.75.

Most notoriously, my old D750, which while having incredible shadow recovery, had mediocre highlight recovery. This required me to underexpose by -1.0 full time outdoors in order to match the highlight recovery of my at-the-time A6000. So the huge DR of the D750 lost 1 stop of shadow recovery just because of poor highlight recovery. DR isn't just what you can recover in the shadows. The highlights are equally important.

"I remember reading something about how film sensitivity lowers as it receives more light, allowing good highlight recovery. Hopefully digital will get there one day."

Check out the Fuji S5 Pro. It's actually the reverse of most sensors, having a TON of highlight recovery (due to dedicated highlight pixels!), with decent shadow recovery. At 1:1 pixel view, it actually beats the D850 and A7R III in DR! Too bad that was the last of that line of sensors from Fuji. Imagine how much DR they could get out of that design with today's tech! O.o

Some photographers claim that all cameras have same highlights recovery but I noticed some cameras do better than others. I was playing with Raw files from D750 and I was disappointed with highlights recovery. DPR will not test highlights recovery anymore, I wish someone did...

Exactly. Some cameras (mainly some m4/3 I've tested), even have less actual highlight recovery than most, due to the extreme highlights desaturating before clipping. On a cloudy day, it's fine, but on a sunny day, the blue sky turns gray before white.

as panny offers a full frame , it isnt because of quality ... it is because full frame ,its very name suggests it makes no compromises, is the new fashion darling of the camera world .... m43 apsc and 33x44 all are superb for delivering exquisite files , but somehow a bigger sensor is dismissed while smaller sensor are berated for their inferiority .... but the "full " sensor is "just right "[ sound like a fairy tale?]its all nonsense .... apsc fuji and oly and panny m43 deliver the image excellence to meet 99 percent of the avg advanced shooters needs, there is no meaningful difference between 24mp apsc and 24mp 24x 36 sensor cams at all but the most extreme isos where for noise larger sensors pull ahead...

I think the m43 suffers from being an 'old fashioned' aspect ratio - it's just so 1960's. 3:2 seems to be a nice compromise between square and panoramic; and is probably the preferred shape for most older photographers who started out with film.

For me full frame sensors hit the sweet spot of the right (intuitive) aspect ratio combined with the light-gathering properties of a large sensor. Nothing to do with noise or extreme iso's, but everything to do with the option of large-scale prints.

LiOm, "4:3 (1.33:1) (generally read as "Four-Three", "Four-by-Three", or "Four-to-Three") for standard television has been in use since the invention of moving picture cameras and many computer monitors used to employ the same aspect ratio. 4:3 was the aspect ratio used for 35 mm films in the silent era"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Hi Causio. RAW files will always be 4:3 in m43 cameras. I think only Panasonic LX100 and LX100 II have multi-aspect sensors with which you can shoot in 4:3 or 3:2 without much loss. LX100 is 12MP and LX100 II is 17MP (becomes 16MP in 3:2 mode).

PostModernBloke,"4:3 was the aspect ratio used for 35 mm films in the silent era"For films, ie movies, but not for stills.4:3 was choosen for the first digital cameras because it was the TV and computer screen format ratio at that time. And this time is over...and was much shorter than the reign of the 3:2 ratio for still photography... Looking at 4:3 pictures on a 16:9 screen sucks, and being obliged to crop and lose resolution also sucks... It is also the case when starting from a 3:2 picture, but to a lesser extent.

ozturet,Yes, I do. I never print pictures and I look at them on today screens, mainly on a UHD TV screen for the highest resolution. And whatever the screen size (TV, computer screen or smartphone), their ratio is 16:9 or close...4:3 is dead...

Headline says "Fujifilm X-T3 image quality: very competitive at low ISO". Low ISO used to be 100-200 or perhaps 400, and high 1600-6400, where the X-T3 still does fine. A bit more precision in the headline might be more helpful for the readers and less click bait:ish/polarizing. Hold that thought...

Sony has the worst video IQ though of all the camera manufacturers. The GH5 alone can beat out the FS7 which is their mid range cine camera. Like how little do you have to care to let your cine camera be comparable to a small MILC.

my opinion is the new camera can deliver with 26 mp, slightly higher detail than the 24mp sensor,.... all the way up to 3200 iso they seem equal in noise

but at about 6400 to 12800 and beyond ,I feel the newer sensor slips a tiny bit in high iso noise behavior,.... losing out to the old sensor by maybe 1\2 a stop ... looking around at all my favorite spots on the comparison scene seems to confirm this at all the highest iso`s

I routinely shoot at ISO 6400, and not just in dark places. If you try to shoot natural creatures with a 100-400F4.5-5.6, you often have to clench your teeth and rachet up to ISO 6400 or even 12800 if the weather is not forgiving.

Yes, I know a 400F2.8 will let me shoot at 1600 or 3200 in the same situation, but as an unpaid weekend photographer, I’d rather cope with somewhat noisier shots than deal with the back pain and the big hole in my bank account that such an extravagance brings.

@malabito: surely the FF have some advantage for high ISO but was your picture really needing ISO 12800? it's like a lot of camera reviews where the reviewers says "even this small sensor can do ISO 6400" and you see a picture taken with decent lighting and high shutter speed.

The dpr comparison is making the new camera look worse than the old one, but others report that it's more usable at ISO 12800 than the old one? If I look at 100% I find the X-T2 noise to be worse than X-T1 but then I get more details and the noise doesn't show that much at viewing size. We'll see after more reviews and comments...

No, not really, that's why you need FF. As soon as you're shooting people you need higher shutter speeds. That's not the case for everyone, is it? I mean with that kind of light on a non-moving subject you can easily go down a few f-stops.

@xiao_xiang: so that's a bait for small sensor people... you know, a lot of people are shooting birds with small sensors and achieve decent results, when taking in consideration the difference in price and weight.I'm often shooting concerts from the crowd or seats, and you can bring only compact cameras there. You start to learn how to get the max out of those tiny sensors. I went to the bigger 1" sensor cameras that have less noise and allow for better shadow recovery but when I use older cameras with 1/1.7" sensor I don't feel like I'm suddenly taking crappy pictures because of the one f-stop difference in ISO perfs.

All the X-T3 shots I've done so far at ISO 160 have been great. Only start seeing luminance noise 5 stops down or so, but at that point, that's huge HDR territory. Also, turn off all noise reduction at that point. For normal shots, no luminance noise. No chrome noise at all (even with noise reduction turned off). Color has been great so far.

Futhermore, no sight of purple haze no matter what backlit shots I've done.

We will see lab results from DXO soon. At low ISO every modern cam gives very good results, what is important is DR for me, and high ISO for wedding, paparazis and sports pros. Every cam sensor specs are now exposed thanks to DXO, and no need for exaggeration. All of the sensors are very good at low ISO and very poor at high ISO. This article smells ad.

DxOMark has never tested X-Trans sensors and has ignored Fujifilm in general.Recently they seem to only be testing mobile phone cameras.PhotonsToPhotos has always tested Fujifilm including X-Trans.For example:www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X-T2,FujiFilm%20X-T3and:www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#FujiFilm%20X-T2_14,FujiFilm%20X-T3_14

You are all right about DXO but it gives an idea about how the sensor reacts in certain senarios. DXO lab results look similar to DPReview results. For example Nikon D5 sucks in DR test in both DXO and DPReview, same results, in other cams it is not that obvious. It is interesting why DXO does not include XTRANS sensors. Is it intentional or technical?

Colour is not subjective and not a matter of opinion. It is measurable, quantifiable and achievable. That means it is comparable. In many industries colours are defined quite clearly. But the amateurish reviewing of digital cameras avoids the issue like a cat avoids the hot milk.

While one can objectively measure color response, objectively true colors may not be subjectively pleasing. Using almost all standard out of the box camera settings colors are somewhat oversaturated. And persons may have different subjective preferences for variations in hue, brightness, etc. It's some time ago now but back when "The Camera Store" was still doing reviews they did a subjective comparison of the color response of a bunch of different cameras. Basically, they used each camera to take pictures of the same scene, and then asked people to blindly rate the images. No brand did universally the best. It depended on subject. Color preference is to a large extent subjective.

Guys, knock it off. You have no idea what you're debating about. You can use the explanation that "colour is purely subjective" and wipe the floor with it, when you owe tens of billions of dollars worth of prints and products that are withdrawn each year from the market because of the colour mismatch or wrong colour delivery, even within a few % of the predefined output.

doesn't matter if the color is right or not, if the person thinks that's how it was when I took the picture, that's why people say it's subjective. Or even more if the person doesn't want accurate but nice looking.

You can always find specific instances where color matters but the vast majority of us are not in the situation you are talking about. If we are going to use the rare exception to every rule in these discussions then we might as well shut the forums down. No camera produces truly accurate colors so for 99% of us it's purely subjective.

Color, color accuracy, color reproducability are absolutely measurable and quantifiable. Arguing against that is absolute nonsense.

Anyone involved in product development, production, marketing, printing, packaging, and many more would laugh at that assertion. You photographers are so full it of sometimes.

Appreciation and preference for colors is subjective and opinion based.

The two are very separate.

An opinion about things measurable, quantifiable, and factual is worthless. Evidence is what you use to argue against facts. The moon is not made of green cheese however many times you vote for lying trump.

To add on what I was saying earlier, when a person says "colors are great" it's like "the sound coming from those headphones is great". To some, it matters that the sound is the closest possible to what it was when it was recorded. However, according to sales numbers, people like the brands that are offering a pleasing, bassy sound.

And opinions about facts are not worthless when it comes to selling something. It's like politics, doesn't matter how right you are if nobody listens or if the lie is easier on the ear.

Can we clearly define some terms? 1) Excellent colour What is the benchmark? In colour photography, it was properly exposed output from Kodachrome 64. How does this camera compare to it?2) Low ISO? What is the benchmark? Is it all colour output below and including 64 ASA or all below and including 100 ASA? Before Kodachrome 64 released, there was Kodachrome 25, and 12, but at the same time, there were ASA400, 800 and 1600 black and white films, considered high and of very high sensitivity. Can we state X-T3 is quite good at, say, ISO 200 and below?

This is the second new camera to take a step back in noise performance, after the 6D. Anyhow a great camera and the difference is of no value whatsoever in real world usage. The omission of IBIS has an immensely higher impact in IQ and usability.

It depends. If you have a fast prime lens (e.g. The 23mm), you don't need IBIS nor OIS as long as your shutter speed isn't slower than e.g. 1/60-1/80.If you go slower (e.g. 1/30) I would recommend a tripod.

Most Fujifilm zoom lenses have OIS, which is seen by many often to be better than IBIS.

For video, I would recommend a gimbal. IBIS and OIS might help a bit, but only a gimbal can really eliminate shaky images. Especially when there is a lot of movement.

And you will need the better performance at 3200-12.800 ISO for fast subjects if you use tele-lenses like 5.6/100-400 mm - 5.6/500 mm and eben 4.0/600 mm and 5.8/800 mm or use converters with supertele.If you need a 1/500 - 1/1000 - 1/2000 of a second Nikon D500 and Fuji X-T2 are still the best solution.Fuji X-T3 and mFT are worse.

Rvel, that's the whole point of IBIS...so you don't need to use a gimbal and especially a tripod, and so don't need to have OIS lenses. IBIS is really incredible these days, I can shoot as slow as 1/3 and get tack sharp results.

Ebrahim, you're clearly biased. I tell you something - The Nikon D3000 was a step-back compared to it's predecessor D60, the Canon EOS 50D was also a real step back into High ISO Noise performance compared to it's predecessor EOS 40D - and the 5 MP more vs the 40D have been mesureably truly neglible, into resolution.

For instance, I do still have & use my D60 from time to time & Tamron 17-50/2.8 It's CCD Sensor true to life colors really excel at ISO100.

I don't give so much for DxO, here is Photons to Photos, and it clearly shows, X-T2 vs X-T3 DR:

@BluebomberTurbo - yes there’s a little more blue noise on the older camera in that specific scenario, but switch to jpeg and not only does that noise disappear (obviously) but the XT2 has more detail, suggesting that blue noise is easily dealt with and the underlying image data is still superior. It’s even more obvious as you increase ISO further.

I am not biased, i'd love an XT-3. I couldn't give a penny about the slight high ISO step-back. However, it IS there and quite interesting just as it was interesting on the 6D. These things go cleaner not noisier. So it is something to mention, a break in a pattern.

Depends on the camera. For my A6300, the color is horrific. Green skin and sunrises. Switch to the A6500 profile, EXACT same sensor, and things look normal again. No reason for that. This is especially noticeable in red, where the A6300's C1 profile leans heavily towards yellow. Not sure where they got the idea it should, since the OOC JPGs between the two cameras (and later ones) are all similar:

There are many reasons I don't like C1, and this is probably #1. The fact that it's VERY hard to create ICC profiles to correct issues like this is easily #2, as it's VERY easy to create basic profiles for Adobe, and have things look correct in just a couple of steps.

@Threaded

"suggesting that blue noise is easily dealt with and the underlying image data is still superior. "

Well yeah, internal NR is tuned for the specific camera. Just like the Nikon D5 and Sony A9 do some amazing things with high ISO JPGs. But use RAW, and all of those optimizations go out the door. You can probably eventually get to that level, but it'll be a lot of work. And each individual image can have a different level of noise, so there's no real universal preset.

BBT, i use the X-E1. And second, i can't stand LR. And the stupid, silly catalogue all feature - further, X-Trans IQ from LR isn't good enough. 3rd, LR is still being sluggish from handling. If one wants to get the most out of the X-Trans Sensor, use Iridient Developer, or on Windows X-Transformer, Capture One is also a great idea, instead of Lightroom. Capture One does also have better tools, than LR from everyone's infamous monopolist -Adobe.

Ebrahim, the difference between the X-T2/T3 DR is only at the highest ISO, and therefore suble. The difference between the 6D & 6D II is a complete different story, it affects the whole DR, at the full ISO step, not only on ISO 25600/51.200, and also, it's neglible, not even +/- 0.5 EV, you can see it for yourself here:

@tbcass - RvEL hasn't necessarily fallen into anything, some of us actually prefer not to have IBIS. It adds cost, weight, size, heat, battery load, etc. It is not needed for all kinds of photography, and in fact, some say it can be detrimental to image quality depending on the shooting scenario (Panasonic has even admitted this).

The X-H series has IBIS, nobody's suggesting that shouldn't. Some of us are just happy there's a non-IBIS flagship option. What's so wrong with that/why does every model need to have all the same features as each other?

@BlueBomberTurbo - so did they just not bother tuning the XT3’s in camera conversion? If it’s raw is genuinely superior, why aren’t it’s own jpegs? The fact is if the XT2 can deal with blue noise internally and get a better image, then so can your raw editor. Bottom line is blue noise or not, it has the advantage over the XT3 here as well - and really, why wouldn’t it, when it clearly has the advantage in daylight too.

Gosh, just get a Life! Now, you're clearly biased - how does it feel, being busted? :> I don't take you for serious anymore. Someone, who compares APS-C vs FF Sensors into Noise & DR performance - really, with comparsions like this, you've lost all credibility. It's a apples vs. oranges comparsion.

Just for the record, you'd also compare a Toyota Yaris with a Ferrari, and then moan about that the latter is faster. Keep complaining, and posting about Testshot noise comparsions at ISO 12.800 and have Fun!

Other People are just buying and enjoying this camera, and doing real photographs with it. I am really bored from this, you're exactly that type, which is fishing for the hairs into the soup. Just for the record, 95% of my photography is between ISO 100-800, max. up to ISO 1600, if ever.

"If one wants to get the most out of the X-Trans Sensor, use Iridient Developer, or on Windows X-Transformer, Capture One is also a great idea, instead of Lightroom."

One of the reasons I'll never buy a Fuji X-Trans camera. They dug themselves a hole by trying to be different in a meaningless way. I'm not changing my workflow just because of Fuji's arrogance.

And no, I don't use LR, I use ACR. Faster, and easier to organize. Don't need the DAM part of the system. And at least Adobe offers its own profiling software, free of charge. Though there are WAY more powerful programs out there.

"The fact is if the XT2 can deal with blue noise internally and get a better image, then so can your raw editor. "

Funny, because not even Fuji can create external editing software that can do that. They rely on the camera's internal processing, instead of writing dedicated (and potentially superior) software, to be able to edit RAWs on the desktop. You literally have to have your camera plugged into the computer to be able to edit anything. If Fuji, the company that created the hardware/software running the camera, can't even do it, why should anyone else be expected to?

@BlueBomberTurbo - Fuji offer Silkypix, Capture One, and yes their own innovative software using the camera’s own jpeg engine - so what? Outsourcing raw software is pretty common. None of this changes the fact that the XT2 sensor is still outperforming the XT3’s at high ISO’s, even in the example you gave.

BBT, one of the reasons, i dont use Adobe anymore - worse IQ than the competition, and i personally hate monopolists, capiche? If one isn't being able, or into the mood, to use an alternative software to get the most IQ out of it - then you're simply not the userbase, for which the X-T3 was being developed for. So many people are just like lemmings, going mainstream, into every way...boring...

"Fuji offer Silkypix, Capture One, and yes their own innovative software using the camera’s own jpeg engine "

Just saying that neither Silkypix or C1 can compare to the output of the camera directly. It's been said as much by Fuji users. Nikon and Canon have software that duplicates the look of their SOOC JPGs. I believe Sony does, too, despite offering free C1.

Dunno, C1's NR kinda turns things to mush. Sharpening isn't anything to write home about, either. So all that's really left is color and tonality, which is iffy at best.

"i personally hate monopolists"

Not sure how Adobe can be a monopoly when there have always been numerous alternatives.

"then you're simply not the userbase, for which the X-T3 was being developed for"

The photographic community? There are MANY people who don't want to switch using their universal software, as it will drastically interrupt their workflow. The cameras offer nothing amazing to warrant that.

Would be nice if you guys compared the High ISO shots using the "low light" scene. You know, an actual realistic scenario. There the T3 looks a lot better than the T2, which has WAY more blue channel noise. I also think it's clearly better than the 6500.

Ah! I praise the lord! Dpreview remarks the biggest problem with Fujifilm OOC JPGs! Finally!“There are still hints of noise reduction causing desaturation that's especially noticeable in faces, with a loss of distinction between the face and the whites of the eyes”.Let see if now, Fuji tune down Fuji JPG engine chroma noise reduction settings for low ISO images in X-T3 and also in X-T2 and rest of Fuji X system cameras and gives everybody the chance and the pleasure to obtain great OOC jpgs that apart of this specific issue are very good technically speaking.

stabilization is only relevant for static subject, or when shooting long focal distances. Sometimes high iso is needed anyway, and people have been using fast lenses without IS indoors with fine results.

Marc - you're right, of course. Having said that, I've never, not once, missed a shot in a museum because I didn't have a tripod, monopod or couldn't use flash ( an almost universal restriction in any museum these days ).

I've also never been in a museum that is so dark that I need to go above 6400 for a completely static subject, and I've been to lots and lots of museums, churches and other dimly lit landmarks.

The people who come to these forums usually know enough about photography to know that a fast lens and/or good handholding technique are the key. IS helps, even if it's not IBIS, but isn't an absolute necessity unless there is something else going on, like some sort of a disability that affects one's ability to hold a camera still. If anyone needs to resort to 51,000 ISO for a museum shot, they need a remedial photography course.

Yep, lol at all the justification for NOT having IBIS. Why do we even need AF? Continuous shooting? Image review? Digital sensors? People made awesome photos for a century without this useless junk. Let's go back to view cameras and silver plates, that's all a *real* photographer needs.

In all seriousness, of course you can take photos without IBIS, but you can take better photos, in more situations, with it! It's as simple as that. You don't always need it, it isn't always helpful, it won't freeze motion, but it *IS* undeniably useful.

While you may not need to use over ISO 6400 frequently in churches, I'm here with a M43 camera shooting at ISO 200-400 in the same lighting conditions that you need 6400, dragging the shutter, getting way better DR and noise performance all from a smaller sensor.

Eventually Fuji will wake up and put IBIS in more cameras, when they figure out (like the rest of the industry has, Canon excepted of course) how to make it small enough.

To be honest, I was really against IBIS if it meant Fuji had to compromise IQ. I preferred to bring two bodies when travelling, a Fuji and a M43 with IBIS for low light shots. But yet I bought a X-H1 because it meant having only one, albeit big and heavy, body to travel with.Then, last holidays, I brought the XF 16mm f1.4 with me, and I didn't really *need* IBIS, f1.4 1/15s and 1600 ISO were enough. Without IBIS, I imagine I could have had good results with 1/30s and 3200 ISO. Not really a problem with current cameras.

Also, since the days I used XM1 + 10-24mm I never needed a tripod anymore even in churches or castles. It's not about questioning the usefulness of stabilization, it's about questioning the usefulness of IBIS, there's a difference.

There is no reason they'd have to compromise with iq. That is just a dalse dilemma.

And with ibis you should be at 200 iso with your 16. An equivalent lens on m43 can do it no problem. And yes, it is a big deal. I missed tons of shots because of lack of ibis on my 5 week trip to the German states due to crappy high iso needed in only relatively low light. Went ibis and I'll never go back.

How many Fuji primes have OIS again? Zero? Is that the right number? That's the usefulness of IBIS, all of your lenses are stabilized. Heck, even that Fuji 2.8 zoom lacks OIS.

This talk about "compromising IQ" is total nonsense. It was marketing speak for "we didn't plan for this and now people want it but we don't have the tech". Fuji spouts some story about how IBIS won't give optimal image quality (to try and placate existing users), which is patently false as Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, and Pentax (Nikon now too) have shown with countless IBIS cameras. If it had any truth to it, Fuji wouldn't have added IBIS to the XH1. Fuji is late to the game here, that's the only issue at play.

If you want to keep beating the "IBIS can't be done without degrading image quality" horse, feel free, but you're only fooling yourself. Modern IBIS systems work exceptionally well and have zero disadvantages. Oly/Pana put IBIS into tiny, cheap, entry level bodies. Surely Fuji can figure this out.

Honestly I would love to use Fuji cameras. I love the lenses, I love the design and controls, but I'm not going to switch to a larger format system and get worse image quality in low light because there is no IBIS (or OIS with most of the lenses I would use in low light). IBIS is the only clear thing the Fuji X system is missing, and I hope they figure it out.

@earthquake: "IBIS is the only clear thing the Fuji X system is missing, and I hope they figure it out."

so what's this thing called on the X-H1??? I don't understand your post, or maybe you didn't read anything I wrote. I was against it, per Fuji's explanation. They released the X-H1 with IBIS, I'm happy with it, there are no issues with IQ.

But should IBIS be on each and every camera and make them bigger and possibly more expensive? I don't think so. Should they work on reducing the size of the mechanism? definitely. It looks like there are only engineers in this forum who are saying I'd do this in my sleep. M43 is using a smaller sensor and when talking about tiny cheap entry level, the IBIS on the E-PM2 doesn't help much with wide angle lenses, the E-PL series has IBIS but again performance is far from E-M1 II IBIS and their bodies are getting bigger as well. Panasonic has no IBIS for anything below GX series. And how long did it take them to have decent IBIS??

Don't get me wrong, I love the ability to shoot 1s at 100mm on my E-M1 II + 12-100mm f4 but this kind of performance remains unique. And Olympus has been working with IBIS for quite a while.

@Shadow9d9: same deal again, where did I say there was a compromise? I said I wouldn't want it *if* I had to compromise. ISO 200 with my 16mm? means shutter speed would have been 1/2s. Even with M43 I would have less keepers at 1/2s. I just checked my library and there not that many pictures that are sharp at 100%, I think 1/4s is a sweet spot though.And I think it is better to have some room with 1/15s ; on holidays you can't always stop and take the ideal shot, and at night, having walked all day, it's better to be safe and end up with good shots instead of a blurry picture at ISO 200. Maybe if I'm confident enough I'll go down one stop next time.

"Looking at the Raw detail, the X-T3 does well, relative to its peers, but with no sign of moiré. X-Trans' slightly lower frequency capture of red and blue information does leave the possibility of occasional glitches in certain colors and patterns."

This is wrong on several levels.

The first link (not reproduced here) does show aliasing (moire is a specific form of aliasing).

X-trans does not have a slighly lower capture red/blue frequency. Those frequencies have orientations and a direct comparison with Bayer sensor does not make much sense. Overall, roughly speaking, the R/B Nyquist limits are more or less the same but the non-peridoic sampling creates challenges for the demosaicing. Its aliasing potential is not much different than Bayer but it does slightly better with regular patterns.

The bottom line is that the X-T3's APS-C sensor is very good. When you consider the X-T3's 2.16 million phase-detection AF, AF acquisition, AF tracking, burst rate, electronic first curtain shutter, JPEG processing engine and stellar video specs (no current APS-C or FF mirrorless or DSLR camera can match the X-T3's video specs), the X-T3 is the best all-round camera currently available. I'm probably forgetting a couple of other X-T3 features...oh, yes...two SD card slots!

Dpreview, your image quality section doesn't discuss one of the most important things in my opinion: The visible(without editing!) out-of-camera jpg dynamic range! The DR Modes aren't there just to be ignored by you!

Many people who buy their first camera have a smartphone camera. Dpreview, your reviews are misleading when they don't show that "cameras" generally have a very bad (visible, without editing) jpg dynamic range (when compared with Google phone or iPhone Xs).

Most parts of the review are not relevant for most camera users, they are rather interesting for camera fanatics. Dpreview, you should think about what your target group is. Even your image quality studio comparison isn't very relevant as this doesn't say much about the real world performance.

Comparisons really are quite difficult because of different lenses, angles and RAW converters.I mostly use it for judging noise. For colors and sharpness it is not very useful, imo.Still, the team surely puts a lot of effort in this and there simply isn't an easy way to provide perfectly comparable results over time(!).

I also think it would be useful to compare real life samples to a good smartphone. Camera manufacturers would take note, I hope, and come up with better software solutions for HDR, etc.

Any thought on the red color? On the X-T3 (raw) it looks more orange-y than the other cameras - including the X-T2. On jpg, the difference is mitigated quite a bit.(side question: how do you copy the link to the exact comparison with selected cameras/iso/preview location and so on?)

That's not the link I asked (moreover, I asked *how* to get it, the one that sends you directly to the cameras you want, iso you want etc) and I know that raw converters are responsible for the colors, but thanks anyway :) Side note: all the converters I tried tend to give an orange tint to the red with X-T3 files. But perhaps C1 11 will fix this once it'll have the fuji profiles.

👍 I should have noted that the URL automatically updates as you use the tool. It's very handy... (There may be yet another link that others use.)

As to the color response, your raw converter of choice should have enough customization that you can shift the reds slightly more magenta (to your taste) and save that as the default for T3 files. Best of luck.

"The most likely explanation we can think of for this discrepancy is a very slight increase in read noise as a result of running all the electronic components faster, to allow the faster sensor readout"

@DPR: switching the performance mode (normal/high) make any difference on high iso results?

Interesting.The X-T3 high ISO noise looks good right up until 12,800 -then the image just falls apart.In RAW, it keeps pace with the Canon 5D4 and 7D2 but easily surpasses the 80D.In JPEG, wow... Canon's engine is just... bad.The good news is I never go above the ISO 6400 ceiling (3200 when using the 80D) so I'm not, in reality, losing anything by leaving Canon's high-ISO champs.

Weird. Almost no one mentions the ISO differences between Fuji cameras and the competition.

At the same settings (ISO, SS, Aperture), the Fuji cameras exposes 1/2-1 stop lower than the competition.

I normally don’t care about this. But when doing a comparison between cameras using the same ISO value, shouldn’t this be mentioned??

In reality the Fuji cameras behave worse than seen here when using the same settings. Obviously this hardly matters at low ISO’s, but it does when shooting at higher ISO values and when you have to use a slower SS and/or aperture.

I love my Sony and Fuji cameras, but I find it weird that DP doesn’t mention or take this into consideration..

It's true that Fujfilm's JPEGs tend to be around 2/3EV darker than most of its peers. Consequently it's also true that their metering will tend to try to give up to 2/3EV more exposure in any given situation. This is mentioned in many of our reviews.

However, our Raw comparisons use the same exposure (matched shutter speed and aperture value for each ISO) across all cameras, so those comparisons are based on all cameras being given the same amount of light.

So we are taking it into account for our Raw comparisons and assessments.

This shows again that many people here at dpreview don't know how to interpret the studio comparison correctly. Dpreview, your review is too focused on specs and studio comparisons. It would be much more useful when you would photograph real world scenes with multiple cameras simultaneously (and expose for the highlights) and show us the raw+jpg results. I would do it on my own, but I don't own cameras with a large sensor.

But doesn’t the Fuji X-Trans cameras still differ in their RAW’s, not just their JPEG’a? If you use the same lighting, SS, Aperture and ISO on the X-T3 and for example the Nikon D500 on the same scene, won’t either the X-T3 be darker or the D500 brighter (depending which one you expose for)?

Raw files don't have an inherent brightness. At most there is the Raw converter's suggested starting point for processing.

We probably have to push the exposure slider by around 0.66EV to brightness match, but there's no cost to doing so. You could automate that if you have very strong opinions about how bright your starting point had to be, for a given shutter speed and aperture combination.

ah this funny topic. I remember I tested I tested a Sony RX10 and Canon 6D with a f2.8 and with the same ISO, aperture and shutter speed, and the Sony was actually making brighter pictures. I never heard anyone complaining about Canon, the 6D was always praised for its high ISO performance. Maybe it was light transmission on the lens or something, my test was quick and dirty...

I think ultimately we shouldn't care about the numbers, only about what the camera produces. If a company cheats and it really matters, it will reflect on our ability to make low light picture with acceptable noise. So far I haven't tried other cameras and thought, here is that 2/3 EV that was missing on my Fuji.

re: Changes in Adobe's processingAdobe blog April -https://theblog.adobe.com/april-lightroom-adobe-camera-raw-releases-new-profiles/The old "Adobe Standard" profile is one of the choices." Adobe Standard was designed to be a great starting point for your photos that would enable you to get the most of out them while editing, however it was also created nearly ten years ago. Over that time, we’ve learned a lot about what photographers want and have gotten great feedback on how we can make an even better starting point. From all of this feedback, a new default was born: Adobe Color.

Adobe Color was designed to greatly improve the look and rendering of warm tones, improving the transitions between certain color ranges, and slightly increasing the starting contrast of your photos. Since Adobe Color is the new default (but only for newly imported photos), it was designed to work on the widest range of photos and ensures that regardless of the subject, your photo will look great."

Yes. Apparently there's been a slight change even in the processing with Adobe Standard (which makes the X-T2 looks a tiny bit noisier in deep shadows of high ISO images), but it wasn't anywhere near enough to cancel-out the difference.

Color consistency between cameras was improved in Adobe Standard, but it's the same overall tonality. Adobe Color, Adobe Landscape, etc. are LUTs applied on top of Adobe Standard, to change color reproduction and tonality.

The SONY A6500 jpg engine seems better than FUJI and Nikon, perhaps the Carl Zeiss FE lens used in a cropped APS sensor gives more sharpness from side to side. But, curiously the jpg file size is half than the others!

Dual12I used to have Fuji cameras. I now have Sony ff and must say Sony colors are much much more accurate and better than Fuji colors. I also dropped Fuji because by dull weather, Fuji colors are so so. Probably due to weaker contrast .

I actually hated the Fuji colors for landscape. The greens are very distinct and have a bad transition from blueish greens to warmer ones. Foliage looks rather bad especially with X-trans post-processing limitations.

CanonSharpShooter, this is about XT3.There is a stupid trend to bash all Canon bodies here in DPReview comments. Just focus on negatives about Canon cameras. Quite disturbing for me, a long time Sony and Olympus user.

It's valid - academically - a review does need to point out image quality at all settings.However -if dpReview is willing to go the extra mile to also use Capture One, along with a pre-release version of Adobe Camera RAW -it would also be informative/educational to use Fuji's own:RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 powered by SILKYPIX (Ver.8.0.0.0)http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/which is a full production release that supports the X-T3, and anyone who buys the X-T3 would have a copy.

Sorry, this is extremely difficult to answer, if you cannot see the conversions posted.It seems the latest Fuji/SilkyPix RAW file converter does manage to reduce noise more - even when every setting to do with NR is set to zero - so the resulting conversion looks noticeably better (noise-wise than the ARC), at pixel level the Fuji/SilkyPix conversion does not look as sharp - I don't think is lower resolution, but actutance which can easily be recovered by careful sharpening. eg: the ACR noise/grain looks sharper which may hint at sharpening by ACR(?)

BUT there is a bit of a wrinkle - when I just re-reviewed the images - unannounced dpReview have changed the RAW images at ISO51200 (and ISO25600) -the ISO51200 versions I worked on were:DSCF2835.RAF and DSCF2835.acr.jpg (dpReview's ACR conversions)the current images are:DSCF5352.RAF and DSCF5352.acr.jpgthe current/later versions seem to show lower noise.

@DPR, since you are presenting Capture One Express outcomes for high ISO, can you please present the whole ISO series using that software, and/or compare vs. Adobe products as this site has in the past.

Given historical processing outcomes, and that Capture One Express is now free, I don't know whether it's a correct assertion that Adobe products are the most widely used by Fujifilm users.

The one feature I was sort of hoping for (not that I had much intentions to upgrade from the XT2) was a base ISO of 100, like Sony and many other cameras (DSLRs at least; and maybe there's a technological limitations that prevents or makes this hard to do, I don't know). Granted the low-noise at ISO 200 is still quite good, I would have preferred even lower base ISO, but they're making improvements (now down to a base of 160 so maybe in the XT4 we can see ISO 100 or ISO125 as a base, not boosted).

Sensor size plays a huge role when its FF vs 1". The bigger the sensor, the more data is recorded for each pixel. The RX100 has very tiny pixels, and only shoots 11+7-bit RAW, so there wasn't enough DR recorded to be impacted in the first place.

Or you could look at this the other way around - the 20MP of the 1" sensor doesn't produce a substantially lower amount of data than the 24MP chip on the A9, which means that both pipelines probably aren't that far apart. Bit depth and compression occur at a stage later than sensor readout, so that's definitely out of the scope of this analysis.Also, cameras don't have pixel "sizes" - those are sensels or photosites. It's usually irrelevant, but not for this discussion. The size and physical distribution of the photosites probably bears no weight for this issue, since reading out a 35mm or 1/2.3" sensor is exactly the same if the number of sites to be read is equal.Finally, what makes you think that the 1" sensors wouldn't suffer from said DR loss *more*, if it were real and caused by sensor stacking (which is not true, BTW)? Smaller chips have more gains to make from a BSI process or better cooling, for example.

Next up: a spirited discussion of which car we should buy, based on how much the OEM spare tire improves a car's handling....while it's in the trunk.

If you're into extreme low light shooting, buy something else then. But for 99% of all photographers, the much faster and more reliable AF and face/eye detect are a much more compelling and intelligent reason to upgrade.

I don't know who your comment is addressed to but DPR is simply reporting their results. People are free to apply the results to their individual use cases. I too find the full PDAF coverage and usable face/eye AF compelling reasons to upgrade. That said, for me, the faster read speed at the cost of going backwards in high ISO quality is a poor trade off but not a deal killer.

DPReview and it's forum folks are at the very extreme end of the photography spectrum. If it doesn't have IBS, 4K and you can't lift shadows by 5 stops, it's simply no good here, the rest of the world would strongly disagree. If you can't make amazing pictures with even an old Canon 18 megapixel sensor, than the problem is in the mirror right in front of you. The best photographers on the planet don't need these features, but today's photogs can't seem to cope without them. We stopped judging cameras on how they operate in the field a long time ago. Thanks to DXO and youtube, you can just read the specifications on the box, look at some test charts and viola you have your review...

With 'Deep Learning' autofocus, crazy-fast burst speeds and refined ergonomics, the E-M1X is the most focused action and sports shooting camera that Olympus has ever made. Here's how it squares up against some key Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competitors.

At its X-Summit event in Dubai, Fujifilm announced a major firmware update for the X-T3, coming in April. Firmware 3.0 will improve Eye-AF performance, and is promised to enhance AF tracking and face detection.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.